Even if we assume that Masonry comes out of stone masons guilds (if any existed in England) we must ignore the history of the Antient lodges to accept standard Masonic history.

Anyway here is a start for those interested in the approach of the self-proclaimed "authentic school" of Masonic history.

"There is several words and signs of a free mason to be revealed to you .
. . ‘ ‘Several words and signs . . .’plural, more than one degree. And
here in a document that should have been dated 1550, we have the first
hint of the expansion of the ceremonies into more than one degree. A few
years later we have actual minutes that prove two degrees in practice."

"Freemasonry was so well-established in England by the
16th century that a well-documented schism in 1567 is on record. The
schism divided English Freemasons into two major factions: the
“York” and “London” Masons.
"

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/godseden/godseden10.htm

Meanwhile some Masonic historians have moved on from the "authentic" approach of relying on lodge minute books and have been considering the content of Masonic ritual and how that relates to more ancient ritual. It turns out there are many detailed correspondences with several ancient traditions. How did stone masons know such things?

Your comment is so dis-joined it is hard to follow a coherent thought.

First:
... no one said there wasn't a ritual before 1717; but that before
1700 it was very simplistic and basic for the operative stone mason.
... further, you imply that Stone mason guilds did not exist in England
(you words 'if any exist'). this is completely illogical since they were
the ones that built the great Gothic cathedrals. ... You further
state " we must ignore the history of the Antient lodges". What antient
lodge do you refer? There were none other than the operative lodges of
the Stone mason guilds.

ALL of your statements are completely contrary to the very reference you give: " 600 Years of Craft Ritual" by Herny Carr.

Next,
your quote about the 1567 'well documented' schism from 'The Gods of
Eden' is so out of context to imply there was a schism within
Freemasonry. There was not! The 1567 English schism was political and
later gave reason for Speculative Masons (London Masons) to separate
from the Operative Masons (York Masons).

"He who would assume to govern others must first learn to govern himself."

Your comment is so dis-joined it is hard to follow a coherent thought.

First:
... no one said there wasn't a ritual before 1717;

Perhaps you might like to read the post to which I was responding:

Ozzie - What makes you think that there was in existence a pre-1717 ritual?

but that before
1700 it was very simplistic and basic for the operative stone mason.
... further, you imply that Stone mason guilds did not exist in England
(you words 'if any exist'). this is completely illogical since they were
the ones that built the great Gothic cathedrals.

It may be illogical but stone masons can work without guilds.

"Freemasonry did not evolve from the medieval guilds of stonemasons in
Britain because it would appear that there were no medieval guilds of
stonemasons in Britain. "

http://www.jcs-group.com/enigma/masonic/stonemason.html

... You further
state " we must ignore the history of the Antient lodges". What antient
lodge do you refer? There were none other than the operative lodges of
the Stone mason guilds.

"Throughout the early years of the new Grand Lodge there were any number
of Masons and lodges that never affiliated with the new Grand Lodge.
These unaffiliated Masons and their Lodges were referred to as "Old
Masons", or "St. John Masons", and "St. John Lodges".

..................

On 17 July 1751, representatives of five Lodges gathered at the Turk's Head Tavern, in Greek Street, Soho, London and formed a rival Grand Lodge – "The Grand Lodge of England According to the Old Institutions". They considered that they practiced a more ancient and therefore purer form of Masonry, and called their Grand Lodge The Ancients' Grand Lodge. They called those affiliated to the Premier Grand Lodge, by the pejorativeepithetThe Moderns. These two unofficial names stuck

...............

In 1809 the Moderns appointed a "Lodge of Promulgation" to return their
own ritual to regularity with Scotland, Ireland and especially the
Ancients. In 1811 both Grand Lodges appointed Commissioners and over the
next two years, articles of Union were negotiated and agreed. In
January 1813 the Duke of Sussex became Grand Master of the Moderns on
the resignation of his brother, the Prince Regent, and in December of that year another brother, Duke of Kent became Grand Master of the Antients. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Grand_Lodge_of_England

I suspect that much of US Masonry was established before the Moderns returned their ritual to regularity with the Antients.

edwmax, I seem to have offended you. That was not my intention. I just have an interest in unofficial history.

"Freemasonry did not evolve from the medieval guilds of stonemasons in
Britain because it would appear that there were no medieval guilds of
stonemasons in Britain. " ...

Believe what you will ... but your statements are not supported by the facts. And, the very reference you gave above (" 600 Years of Craft Ritual" by Herny Carr) clearly indicates speculative Freemasonry came from the opertive Stone mason Lodges (companies/guilds).

Ozzie wrote:

... You further
state " we must ignore the history of the Antient lodges". What antient
lodge do you refer? There were none other than the operative lodges of
the Stone mason guilds.

"Throughout the early years of the new Grand Lodge there were any number
of Masons and lodges that never affiliated with the new Grand Lodge.
These unaffiliated Masons and their Lodges were referred to as "Old
Masons", or "St. John Masons", and "St. John Lodges".

..................

On 17 July 1751, representatives of five Lodges gathered at the Turk's Head Tavern, in Greek Street, Soho, London and formed a rival Grand Lodge – "The Grand Lodge of England According to the Old Institutions". They considered that they practiced a more ancient and therefore purer form of Masonry, and called their Grand Lodge The Ancients' Grand Lodge. They called those affiliated to the Premier Grand Lodge, by the pejorativeepithetThe Moderns. These two unofficial names stuck

...............

NOT relevant to the discussion.

Ozzie wrote:

... In 1809 the Moderns appointed a "Lodge of Promulgation" to return their
own ritual to regularity with Scotland, Ireland and especially the
Ancients. In 1811 both Grand Lodges appointed Commissioners and over the
next two years, articles of Union were negotiated and agreed. In
January 1813 the Duke of Sussex became Grand Master of the Moderns on
the resignation of his brother, the Prince Regent, and in December of that year another brother, Duke of Kent became Grand Master of the Antients. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Grand_Lodge_of_England

It was more like making the Ritual of BOTH GLs regular with EACH OTHER. The big difference was the Royal Arch degrees which was separated from the 3 craft degrees of the Anceints. This separation was insisted on by the GL of England (Moderns). ref: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/england_grand_lodge.html

Edited by edwmax - October/10/2014 at 10:23am

"He who would assume to govern others must first learn to govern himself."

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum